Tuesday, December 20, 2011

sci-fi

let me start with saying that i totally see the argument here. in a face-to-face war, yes. totally. but let me take a minute to explore it more fully.

remember, primitive egyptians built pyramids with the technology that they have and we can't figure out how to do it.

but on the other note, the main mechanic for the game as a limiter is this: if an arrow can kill a person in cloth armor (think an item with the ability to do 1 damage attacking a unit with an base value of 1), and a plasma grenade can kill a person in metal armor (same formula).

when you place the two together you have to take into account that of COURSE the plasma grenade will do the damage far more than the damage of the arrow.

but for now, for the sake of mechanics it will be 1 to 1 ratio.

but you have a valid point. for the sake of argument, we will probably add things like "sand traps" for egyptians that make a unit with a health higher than 15 unable to leave the war camp...

things that guerrilla warfare suggests would definitely be a boon to the low-tech army.

think about this: when the united states invaded vietnam we had superior EVERYTHING when it came to the items that we brought with us, but we didn't know the lay of the land and how to utilize it to our advantage. the united states lost that war and are ashamed of it. but the same thing happened when the brittish redcoats tried to put down the colonial rebellion. the french, colonialists, and native tribes slaughtered them because they didn't "fight fair"...

even in science fiction, we see this once (and i actually am a fan of the movie but they should have never made any more). starship troopers. the so-called "heros" came in to squash a bunch of bugs but were sorely mistaken as to what they had gotten into.

and those were creatures with NO technological advances that lived in holes in the ground.

so, there is a lot of tweaking you can do. aside from death stars and neutrino bombs it should be a fair fight.